Build a speed and ride-height map before tuning

Generated from content/lms/race-aerodynamics/07-turn-findings-into-a-tuning-plan/04-document-a-speed-and-ride-height-map.md; edit the source file, not this page.

Source path: content/lms/race-aerodynamics/07-turn-findings-into-a-tuning-plan/04-document-a-speed-and-ride-height-map.md

Course: Engineer downforce you can actually use

Module: Turn findings into a tuning plan

Estimated duration: 55 minutes

The point of the map

A speed and ride-height map is not a decoration for the data report. It is the working record that keeps your aero tuning honest. You are trying to answer a narrow question: at the speeds and locations that matter, where is the car actually running, and did the configuration change alter the car in a repeatable way? If you cannot answer that, you are not yet tuning the aero platform. You are reacting to lap time, driver feel, and isolated traces without knowing whether the car was at the same attitude when each comparison was made.

The bonded material supports a disciplined but practical approach. Track testing can give you corner speeds, straight speeds, split times, braking deceleration rates, lap times, sector times, and driver feedback on aerodynamic balance. With more serious logging, you can add suspension-position or chassis-motion evidence. In a wind tunnel, a test programme may control heave, ride height, pitch, roll, yaw, and steer angle and quickly acquire an aero map for a configuration. On a club car, you rarely get the tunnel version of that map. Your job is to build the trackside version carefully enough that it still teaches you something.

For this lesson, treat the map as a bridge between the car's physical platform and its measured performance. Speed is the dial that makes aerodynamic effects easier to see. Ride height, or a suspension-position channel that stands in for it, tells you where the platform actually went while the speed changed. Lap and sector evidence tells you whether that platform state mattered to the stopwatch. Driver feedback tells you whether the balance changed in a way the person in the car could use. None of those channels alone is the truth. Together, recorded with discipline, they become a tuning plan.

What you are documenting

A useful map has four layers. The first layer is the test identity: date, circuit or test road, session, configuration, tyre state, weather note if relevant, fuel load if you are tracking it, and whether the run is baseline or changed. The second layer is the speed evidence: lap time, sector time, straight speed, high-speed corner entry speed, apex speed, exit speed, and any available speed-versus-time or rpm-derived trace. The third layer is platform evidence: front and rear ride height if measured directly, suspension potentiometer readings if that is what you have, or the derived heave and pitch summary that your system can support. The fourth layer is interpretation evidence: driver balance note, visible trend in the run chart, and whether the result survived a return to baseline.

Do not call a single fast lap a map. A map is built from repeated observations. The McBeath chunks describe a practical wing comparison based on five-lap runs, averaging lap times, discarding abnormal laps, changing only the wing configuration, and returning to baseline periodically because weather, track condition, and tyre deterioration move the reference under your feet. That same structure belongs in your speed and ride-height work. If you map one lap after a change, then another lap after the tyres have faded, then another after the driver got braver, you have made a scrapbook, not a test.

The map also needs to distinguish location from measurement. Van Valkenburgh notes that track maps generated from speed and lateral acceleration are useful for rough location visualization, but without correction for roll-angle contribution, camber, elevation, grade, and curve identification errors, the map is only approximate. That is not a reason to avoid the tool. It is a reason to be honest about the label. Use the track map cursor to find the same general braking zone, corner, or straight. Do not pretend that a low-cost calculated map has located the car to engineering-survey precision.

The minimum useful version

If all you have is speed or rpm versus time, you can still start the map. McBeath points out that a trace of rpm or speed against time can yield corner and straight speeds, elapsed time for a run, split times between track sections, and braking deceleration rates. That is enough to document whether an aero configuration gained speed in a high-speed corner, lost speed on the straight, or produced a net gain or loss over the full elapsed time. It is not enough to document actual ride height. In that case, your honest map has speed, sectors, and configuration, with a blank or unavailable platform column. You do not fill that blank with guesses.

The next useful version adds suspension-position channels. Segers describes data from four suspension potentiometers and damper acceleration, and also shows chassis heave motion as a histogram. With that kind of logging, you can begin recording how the car's platform moved during the same speed zones you already care about. You can summarize front and rear position, left and right position, heave, and pitch. You still need to be careful. A suspension potentiometer is not automatically a calibrated ground-clearance measurement. It is a repeatable chassis-motion channel if installed and used consistently, and it becomes more valuable when your comparison is relative: same car, same channel, same logging convention, baseline versus changed configuration.

The best club-level version combines those channels into repeatable run charts and plots. Segers describes run charts as time-based charts where each point represents a statistic from one lap, such as top speed, average throttle position, minimum oil pressure, average tyre temperature, or average understeer angle. For this lesson, your run chart might include top speed, minimum front platform position in a chosen high-speed section, minimum rear platform position in the same section, sector time, and a driver balance code. Van Valkenburgh also supports 3-D graphing for visualizing three variables at once, such as a third variable superimposed on a speed-time trace. That gives you a practical way to see speed, platform state, and lap or location together without burying the finding in one trace window.

The principle: relative truth beats absolute fantasy

The most important rule is simple: build the map around repeatable relative comparisons, not impressive absolute numbers. McBeath's wind-tunnel material makes the same point at a higher level. When full-scale and model data are correlated, the scaling factor can vary from tunnel to tunnel. Once a baseline is accepted, progress should be judged as percentage improvements from that baseline rather than by worshipping absolute values, and baseline tests should be repeated as often as budget allows to make sure improvements are genuine.

Apply that thinking to your track map. If your ride-height channel says the front platform is lower in the fast section with the new configuration, do not immediately turn that into a universal ground-clearance fact. First ask whether the baseline repeated. Ask whether the same channel behaved the same way on the return-to-baseline run. Ask whether the sector speed and sector time moved in the same direction. Ask whether the driver feedback described the same balance change. If those pieces line up, you have a useful relative finding. If they do not, you have a reason to repeat the test or improve the measurement.

This matters because aero testing is full of seductive numbers. A speed trace can show a faster corner. A suspension trace can show more compression. A lap time can improve. But McBeath also warns that changing weather or track conditions can change the baseline, and tyre deterioration is a reliable source of drift. The map protects you by forcing every result to sit next to the conditions and the return baseline. That is how you avoid tuning around tyres, driver adaptation, or a changing track while calling it aero.

Before the session: write the test question

The map starts before the car rolls. Write the configuration you are testing and the single change you intend to make. If the lesson in this module on translating high-speed feedback into aero questions has already produced a question, bring that question here. Do not widen it. You might be comparing two wing settings, two bodywork configurations, or a baseline against one aero adjustment. The McBeath and Carroll Smith methodology is clear on the discipline: make only the configuration change being tested. If you change tyres, alignment, springs, ride height, wing angle, and driving objective in the same window, you can still learn that the car felt different. You cannot honestly map why.

Choose the parts of the lap where aero should show up most clearly. McBeath lists high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds, with a note that more than 60 mph or 100 km/h is a practical reference depending on downforce level. Use that as a filter, not a law. On a low-downforce club car, the signal may be modest and the driver may still dominate the variation. On a higher-downforce car, speed-sensitive behavior may be clearer. Either way, the map should focus on high-speed corners and long straights first. Low-speed corners are not useless, but they are more likely to be dominated by mechanical grip, driver execution, and traction rather than aero load.

Decide what will count as a valid lap before you see the data. A valid lap is not simply a lap that supports the story you wanted. Borrow the five-lap comparison structure. Run the baseline for a small group of laps, run the changed configuration for the same kind of group, and return to baseline later in the session if the schedule allows. Discard obvious abnormal laps for the average, but record that you discarded them and why. If the driver was blocked by traffic, missed a shift, ran wide, or used a different line, do not hide that problem inside an average.

Before the session: define the columns

Your map sheet should be boring enough that you can fill it out under paddock pressure. Give every row a run number and configuration label. Add lap number, clean or abnormal status, segment or location, speed statistic, platform statistic, sector or elapsed time, straight speed if relevant, and driver comment. If your logger allows exports to a spreadsheet, the run-chart material from Segers supports that workflow. If your software is limited, you can still record the statistics by hand after reviewing the trace.

For speed, choose statistics that match the question. If you are studying a high-speed bend, record entry, apex, and exit speed for the same approximate location on each clean lap. If you are studying drag or straight-line penalty, record maximum speed or speed at a repeatable marker on the straight. If you are studying whether the change improves the whole lap, record lap and sector averages after removing abnormal laps. McBeath's basic speed-versus-time method supports all of these as practical aerodynamic evidence.

For ride height or platform, choose statistics that are repeatable rather than fancy. A minimum front platform value in the chosen high-speed section may be more useful than a full trace printed too small to read. A front-rear difference in the same section may show pitch trend more clearly than four raw channels shown at once. A lap-level average, maximum, or minimum can feed a run chart. If you cannot defend the statistic after the session, do not use it as a tuning trigger.

During the run: protect the baseline

Once the car goes out, the driver has a job and the data person has a job. The driver repeats the same driving objective through the test window. The data person guards the labels. Baseline means baseline. Changed means changed. Abnormal means abnormal. If the car comes in and the team is unsure which configuration was on the car for a run, that run should not drive the tuning plan.

The return-to-baseline step is not paperwork. It is the check that saves the test. McBeath emphasizes that, especially when weather or track conditions change, it is crucial to return periodically to the baseline. If the baseline return is slower everywhere, lower in the platform trace, and accompanied by tyre deterioration, then the changed configuration may not deserve credit or blame for the entire trend. If the baseline return overlays the original baseline closely enough, the changed run gains weight.

For an intermediate driver, this is also where ego gets managed. If a new configuration feels better and produces a faster lap, you still return to the map. Where was it faster? Did it gain in high-speed corner speed, straight speed, or only in a section where the driver finally carried more entry pace? Did the platform channel change at the same speed, or did the car simply go faster because the driver used more throttle earlier? The map does not insult the driver. It separates driver improvement from configuration evidence so the next setup change is not based on the wrong cause.

After the session: build the first view

Start with the run chart. Put lap number on the horizontal axis and your chosen statistics on the vertical axis. At minimum, show lap or sector time, top speed or chosen corner speed, and the platform statistic for the same section. Mark baseline, changed, and return-to-baseline runs. This wider view matters because Segers points out that comparative analysis is often limited to single laps, while complete-session views reveal trends and abnormal situations. Your first job is not to find the prettiest overlay. Your first job is to see whether the session itself stayed stable enough to compare.

If the run chart shows a steady drift across the whole session, treat the map with caution. Tyres may be deteriorating. Track or weather may be changing. Driver confidence may be rising. If the drift is similar in baseline and changed windows, the configuration effect may be smaller than the session trend. If the changed run moves sharply and the baseline return comes back toward the original baseline, the configuration effect is more credible.

Only after that should you open the detailed trace. Use the track map for rough location if available, but remember Van Valkenburgh's warning about approximate maps from speed and lateral acceleration. Use the same cursor location or the same segment definition each time. If you are comparing a high-speed bend, do not slide the cursor lap by lap until the result looks clean. Pick a repeatable point or section, then collect the statistic consistently.

After the session: build the speed-height view

The core plot is speed against platform state. For each valid lap in the chosen section, plot speed and front platform value. Add rear platform value or pitch if your channels support it. Use different colors or symbols for baseline, changed, and return baseline. If your software supports a three-variable view, Van Valkenburgh's 3-D graph concept gives you a useful structure: speed on one axis, platform statistic on another, and lap, section, or configuration as the third variable. If the software does not, a spreadsheet scatter plot and a run chart can do the job.

What you are looking for is shape and repeatability. Does the baseline occupy a consistent cluster? Does the changed configuration move that cluster at the same speed? Does the return baseline come back? If the changed configuration only appears lower because the car was simply traveling faster, separate that from a configuration effect. Compare similar speed points when you can. If the car runs lower at the same speed after the change, that is different from running lower because the lap was faster everywhere.

Do not over-clean the data. Van Valkenburgh notes that curve fitting can reduce noisy data to coefficients when the data should theoretically fit a smooth curve, such as reducing an aerodynamic coastdown curve to a drag coefficient. That does not mean every ride-height trace should be forced into a smooth story. Use smoothing or curve fitting only when the underlying relationship warrants it and when the raw data remains available. Your job is to document the evidence, not to polish away the inconvenient parts.

Reading the map: load, balance, and drag

The map should feed the module's larger tuning order: balance, load, then drag. This lesson does not replace those sibling lessons. It gives them evidence. If the driver reports high-speed understeer or oversteer, the map helps you check whether the platform changed at the speeds where the complaint occurs. If corner speed rises but straight speed falls, the map helps you frame the classic trade between extra cornering performance and possible drag cost. McBeath's basic analysis explicitly supports measuring corner-speed gains from increased downforce, a related straight-line speed drop, and the net elapsed-time result.

You should resist the temptation to call every straight-speed loss drag and every corner-speed gain downforce. McBeath's drag-measurement section is careful about this. Indirect measurements from sector and lap times are valuable and often enough, but directly measuring aerodynamic forces is a different task. Coastdown can measure total drag force, yet total drag includes mechanical resistance as well as aerodynamic drag. Suspension loads, horizontal loads, or driveshaft strain can provide deeper measurement, but those sensors may be beyond budget. Your map can point toward a drag question; it does not automatically solve it.

The same humility applies to ride height. A lower trace in a fast section may mean greater aero load, a different mechanical platform response, a different speed, a different bump interaction, a different driver line, or a measurement issue. The map earns authority by bringing those facts together. It does not earn authority by pretending one channel explains the car alone.

When the map is good enough to act on

A map is good enough to act on when it survives four checks. First, the baseline repeats closely enough for the decision you are making. It does not have to be identical. It has to be close enough that the configuration effect is larger than the baseline drift. Second, the changed configuration moves the relevant statistic in the relevant speed range. Third, the performance evidence points the same direction: corner speed, sector time, straight speed, or elapsed time changes in a way that matches the tuning question. Fourth, the driver feedback does not contradict the data in a way you cannot explain.

If one of those checks fails, the map may still be useful, but it should not trigger a confident setup direction. A baseline that does not repeat tells you to repeat the test. A platform movement with no performance change tells you to ask whether the platform change matters or whether your statistic is the wrong one. A faster lap with no repeatable platform or speed pattern tells you the driver may have improved, traffic may have changed, or the lap may be abnormal. A driver complaint that appears only in low-speed corners should push you toward the sibling lesson on deciding what is not an aero problem.

What the tuning plan should contain

The output of this lesson is not a pile of plots. It is a short plan for the next test. Each finding should state the configuration, the evidence, the confidence level, and the next action. For example, the plan might say that the changed wing setting raised high-speed corner speed but reduced straight speed, with a net sector gain in one sector and no full-lap gain because the baseline return drifted. The next action would be to repeat with tighter baseline control, not to declare the wing setting superior.

Another plan might say that the platform trace moved consistently lower in the chosen fast section at similar speeds, the baseline return repeated, and the driver reported a matching high-speed balance change. The next action could be to test a nearby configuration or to inspect whether the platform is entering a region the team wants to avoid. The exact mechanical or aerodynamic interpretation depends on data not supplied in this corpus, so the honest plan names the observation and the next question rather than inventing a stall diagnosis.

A third plan might say that lap time improved, but the speed-height view shows no repeatable configuration separation and the run chart shows a session-long trend. The next action is to mark the result inconclusive, preserve the data, and retest. That can feel unsatisfying, but it is better than spending the next event chasing a change that belonged to tyre state, track evolution, or driver adaptation.

Calibration cues for improvement

You are improving at this skill when your maps become less dramatic and more useful. Early maps often look like proof of whatever the team wanted to believe. Better maps show limits. They separate clean laps from abnormal laps. They show baseline drift. They show that a track map is only a rough locator. They leave blank columns when a channel was not measured. They record driver comments without letting the comments overrule the data.

A good map has repeatable clusters. The baseline laps occupy a recognizable band. The changed configuration either moves that band or it does not. The return baseline tells you whether the first band was real. The run chart shows whether tyre deterioration or changing conditions were large enough to matter. The speed and platform statistics come from the same section, not from whatever section made each channel look most persuasive.

The instructor voice for this lesson would be blunt: if you cannot explain how the number was collected, you do not get to tune from it. If you cannot repeat the baseline, you do not get to brag about the improvement. If the map only works when one abnormal lap is included, it is not a map yet. These are not academic rules. They are what keep a modest data system from becoming a very expensive rumor generator.

Where this lesson stops

This lesson teaches documentation and decision discipline, not full aerodynamic force measurement. The corpus supports coastdown as a practical drag method, but also notes that it measures total drag including mechanical resistance. It supports wind-tunnel aero mapping and full-scale correlation, but also cautions that scale factors vary and baselines must be repeated. It supports suspension-position and chassis-motion logging, but it does not provide a complete ride-height sensor calibration procedure. It supports 3-D graphing and run charts, but it does not provide software-specific button clicks.

That boundary matters. If your map suggests a splitter, diffuser, floor, or wing is entering a sensitive region, the right response is to turn that into a testable aero question, not to write a diagnosis the data cannot support. If your map shows that the problem appears in low-speed sections, the right response may be to leave aero alone and inspect mechanical setup, tyres, or driver input. If your map shows a straight-speed loss and corner-speed gain, the next step is to prioritize balance, load, and drag using the module's sibling lessons. The map is the evidence table that lets those decisions happen cleanly.

The finished lesson skill

By the end of this work, you should be able to take one aero configuration question, run a disciplined baseline-change-baseline comparison, extract speed and platform statistics from clean laps, summarize the whole session with run charts, build a speed-height view, and write a next-test plan that separates evidence from speculation. You do not need a Formula 1 tunnel to start. You do need honesty about what you measured, discipline about what changed, and enough baseline repetition to know whether the result belongs to the car or to the session.

Worked example: two-wing comparison without losing the baseline

Use the Carroll Smith style comparison described in the McBeath chunks as the template. You have two rear-wing configurations and a basic logger. The temptation is to bolt on the second wing, send the car, and keep whichever lap is faster. That is not the lesson. The lesson is to build a map that can survive a second look.

Start with the baseline wing. Run five laps if the session allows, and mark any lap that is abnormal because of traffic, a driver error, or a missed shift. From the clean laps, record lap time average, sector times, straight speed, and the high-speed corner entry, apex, and exit speeds that matter for this circuit. If you have suspension-position or ride-height channels, record the chosen front and rear platform statistic from the same high-speed section. Add a short driver balance note, especially if the driver reports high-speed entry, apex, or exit behavior.

Change only the wing configuration. Repeat the same five-lap structure. Use the same driver objective and the same map columns. If the changed wing gives more high-speed corner speed but costs straight speed, do not declare victory yet. Set the corner-speed gain against the straight-speed loss and the sector or elapsed-time result. That trade is exactly the kind of indirect aero evidence McBeath says can be better than stopwatch timing alone.

Now return to the baseline if the schedule permits. This is where the example becomes useful. If the baseline return is close to the original baseline, the wing comparison has weight. If the return baseline is slower, lower, or different everywhere, the session moved. Tyre deterioration, weather, track condition, or driver adaptation may be part of the story. Your tuning plan should then say that the first comparison was promising, inconclusive, or worth repeating, not that the wing has been proven by one faster lap.

Worked example: straight-line coastdown as the drag-side check

A speed and ride-height map often raises a drag question. A configuration that helps a fast corner may reduce straight speed. The track map can show that trade, but it may not isolate drag. McBeath's coastdown discussion gives you a practical companion test: a long, straight, flat, smooth piece of road and a coastdown method can measure total drag force with much less instrumentation than direct force measurement.

For this lesson, use the coastdown as a drag-side check, not as a replacement for the platform map. Run the same configuration labels you used at the track. Record speed decay during the coastdown and keep the conditions and configuration labels clean. If the data is noisy but should follow a smooth curve, Van Valkenburgh's curve-fit guidance supports reducing the coastdown curve to a useful coefficient. Keep the raw data as well, because a curve fit is only helpful when it represents the underlying relationship rather than hides bad measurement.

The important limitation is that coastdown total drag includes mechanical resistance as well as aerodynamic drag. That means a coastdown result can strengthen or weaken a drag suspicion, but it does not automatically isolate only the aero device. If your track map showed a straight-speed loss and the coastdown comparison also worsens in the same configuration, your next tuning plan has a stronger drag question. If the coastdown result is unclear, do not force it. Mark it as unclear and repeat with better control.

Worked example: using tunnel correlation without worshipping the number

If you get wind-tunnel access, the speed and ride-height map changes shape but not philosophy. A tunnel programme may control heave, ride height, pitch, roll, yaw, and steer angle, and the software may acquire an aero map for each configuration. That sounds more precise than a club logger, but McBeath's tunnel-correlation caution still applies. Full-scale and model data require correlation, scale factors can vary, and progress should be judged from a validated baseline rather than from absolute numbers alone.

Bring your track map to the tunnel as a reality check. Use the track data to choose the speed and platform states that actually occurred in the high-speed sections you care about. Test a baseline configuration that you already understand on track, then test the changed configuration. When the tunnel result agrees with the track trend, you gain confidence. When it does not, the answer is not to ignore one source and crown the other. The answer is to inspect the correlation, repeat the baseline if budget allows, and judge the next step from percentage improvement and repeatability rather than from one absolute load number.

This worked example also protects against a common tunnel mistake: testing elegant points that the car never sees. If your track map shows that the car runs at a particular ride-height and pitch range in the fast section, that range deserves attention. If the tunnel map spends all day at platform states outside the real run envelope, the resulting aero map may be technically beautiful and practically unhelpful.

Common mistakes

The first mistake is single-lap certainty. One fast lap after an aero change is not a map. Good looks like clean-lap averages, abnormal laps marked rather than hidden, and a return baseline that tells you whether the session moved.

The second mistake is changing more than one thing. If you change the aero part and the mechanical setup together, the map may still show a difference, but it cannot assign the cause. Good looks like one configuration change at a time and a written run label that the whole team can understand.

The third mistake is treating approximate location as exact location. A calculated track map can help you find a corner or straight, but Van Valkenburgh's cautions about grade, camber, elevation, roll angle, and curve identification mean you should not use rough location as survey-grade truth. Good looks like consistent segment definitions and honest labels.

The fourth mistake is filling missing platform data with imagination. If you only logged speed or rpm, you can document speed, elapsed time, splits, straight speed, and braking deceleration. You cannot document ride height. Good looks like a blank platform column and a recommendation to add the needed channel for the next test.

The fifth mistake is absolute-number worship. A club-level ride-height or suspension-position map is most defensible as a relative comparison. Good looks like baseline versus changed versus baseline-return thinking, percentage or relative improvement language, and caution around exact values that were not independently validated.

The sixth mistake is confusing total drag with pure aerodynamic drag. Coastdown is useful, but the total includes mechanical resistance. Good looks like using coastdown to strengthen a drag question while keeping the limitation visible in the tuning plan.

Drill: three-run speed-height map progression

At your next test day, run a three-run progression. The count is three mapped runs: baseline, one configuration change, and return baseline. The duration is one session if the format allows, or two sessions if you need time to make the change safely. Each run should target three to five clean laps, with abnormal laps marked before averages are calculated.

Before the first run, choose one high-speed section and one straight. Build a map sheet with these columns: run label, lap, clean or abnormal, chosen high-speed section speed, chosen straight speed, sector or elapsed time, front platform statistic, rear platform statistic, and driver balance note. If you do not have platform channels, leave those columns unavailable and complete the speed-only version rather than guessing.

After the baseline run, fill the sheet and create a simple run chart. After the changed run, add the same statistics. After the return baseline, check whether the baseline repeated. The success criterion is not finding a faster setup. The success criterion is producing one honest next-test statement: either the change moved the relevant speed and platform evidence with a repeatable baseline, the change did not move the evidence, or the test was inconclusive because the baseline moved.

If you can make that statement without arguing from memory, you have completed the drill. If you cannot, simplify the next attempt. Use fewer sections, fewer statistics, and tighter labels. A smaller map that survives review is worth more than a wide map that nobody trusts.

When this principle breaks down

The speed and ride-height map breaks down when the measurement is weaker than the conclusion. It cannot diagnose a specific underbody stall without supporting pressure, force, or properly interpreted platform evidence. It cannot separate aerodynamic drag from total resistance in a coastdown without acknowledging mechanical resistance. It cannot turn a low-speed handling complaint into an aero tuning direction just because an aero part was recently changed.

It also breaks down when the baseline is not protected. If weather, track condition, tyre deterioration, or driver execution changes more than the configuration effect, the map may still be valuable as a record, but it should not drive a confident tuning change. In that case, the professional answer is not to invent certainty. The professional answer is to write the finding as inconclusive, preserve the evidence, and repeat the test with better control.

Author Review

No quiz questions are attached to this lesson.

Sources

#	Document	Chunk	Pages	Score	Collection
1	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	2dcc6067-583b-6042-00b6-d306f5d46cd6	344	1	uio_books_raw_v1
2	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	4adf8cb4-89c7-1b45-bd4d-9bb03634ecf3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
3	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c0cd0f54-6d9c-7f08-e9af-37c31b3421d3	345	1	uio_books_raw_v1
4	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	c87c89fe-58c4-8968-6248-4a307e39f9e2	346	1	uio_books_raw_v1
5	Competition Car Aerodynamics 3rd Edition McBeath Simon	2906380a-d6a2-4a39-6854-497422b7105b	380	1	uio_books_raw_v1
6	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	b7da1ef7-f9f8-c734-bdb6-c1aa09e017fe	5	1	uio_books_raw_v1
7	Analysis Techniques for Racecar Data Acquisition	3e957c6f-b3fb-a8ce-c62a-9d23b7660a9f	6	1	uio_books_raw_v1
8	Race Car Engineering Mechanics Paul Van Valkenburgh	d7828c65-f089-3d53-48a5-363170dcba2d	153	1	uio_books_raw_v1